Bombay High Court
Union Of India vs Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav And Ors on 12 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:8036
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1471 OF 2006.
Union of India, ]
Represented by the General Manager, ]
Western Railway, ]
Mumbai ] ...Appellant.
Versus
1. Shri Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav ]
2. Shri Bharat Krishna Jadhav ]
3. Sachin Krishna Jadhav ]
Resident of Block No. 205, ]
Jay Hanuman Society, ]
Kankani Pada, Kurar Village, Malad (E) ]
Mumbai - 400 097. ] ....Respondents
------------
Mr. Chetan Agrawal for Appellant.
Mr. Sainand Chaugule for Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 12th February, 2025.
Oral Judgment :
1. The First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
17th March, 2005, granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the
Original Claimants-Respondents with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of order till realization.
2. The claim came to be filed by father and brothers of the
Sairaj 1 of 6
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
deceased, claiming that on 2nd October, 2002, the deceased had left the
house in the morning for conducting yoga classes at Walkeshwar and
commenced his return journey from Grant Road railway station to
Malad, but fell down from the running train near Lower Parel railway
station due to excessive rush. It was further claimed that he was
holding valid Season Ticket No. 49631813 and Identity Card No. 65.
3. The Railways resisted the claim contending that deceased was
not a bona fide passenger and his death had not occasioned due to
'untoward incident' as defined under the provisions of Section 123 (c)
(2) of Railways Act, 1989 [for short, "Railways Act"] and that
Applicants were not dependents of deceased.
4. The Applicants led evidence and produced the Inquest
Panchnama, police report and post-mortem report along with Station
Master's memo. By deposing all relevant facts, Applicants discharged
their initial burden. The Respondents did not lead any evidence.
5. The Trial Court considered that Applicants had produced season
ticket and identity card and filed those documents, which proved that
deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Trial Court also noted the
memo of Station Superintendent, which clearly stated that the
deceased fell down from the train and had expired on the spot near
Lower Parel railway station. The Inquest Panchnama was also
considered where there is reference to Station Master's Memo as to
Sairaj 2 of 6
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
the falling down of deceased from the train. Considering the evidence
on record, the Trial Court answered the issue as regards the bona fide
passenger and that the death being occasioned as a result of untoward
incident, in favor of Applicant. As regards the claim of the brothers
towards dependency, the Trial Court noted the definition of
'dependant' as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act and
held that only father is dependent of the deceased and brothers are
not entitled to any compensation, and accordingly, granted
compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to
deceased's father.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant submits that specific
defense was raised by the Railways that deceased was not a bona fide
passenger and had not died in an untoward incident. He submits that
burden was upon Applicants to prove the same, which they failed to
do. He submits that Claimant impleaded the brothers, who were not
the dependants and therefore, no compensation could have been
granted. He would further submit that interest was directed to be paid
though the statutory provisions do not provide for payment of
interest.
7. Per contra learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Original
Claimant would submit that during the pendency of proceedings, the
deceased's father, i.e. Krishna Jadhav expired and brothers being the
Sairaj 3 of 6
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
legal heirs of Krishna Jadhav, who are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will be
entitled to the compensation. He would further submit that evidence
on record substantiates the claim of Claimants of the deceased being a
bona fide passenger as the Railway ticket was produced, which was
marked as Ex. A-2. He would further submit that in the memo of
Station Superintendent, it is stated that deceased fell down from the
train and was killed on the spot. He submits that in view of the said
document, the Trial Court rightly held that death had occasioned due
to an untoward incident. As regards the grant of interest, he submits
that Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi1 has
accepted the position that interest is required to be paid, and which
has been done in the present case.
8. The following points would arise for determination:
(i) Whether in facts of present case, the Trial Court has rightly granted
compensation for the death of the deceased.
(ii) Whether the Trial Court has rightly awarded interest on the
compensation.
As regards Point No. (i):-
9. The evidence which has come on record proves that deceased
was a bona fide passenger as the season ticket as well as the identity
card were produced by Applicants, which came to be marked as Exhibit-
1 [2018] 4 S.C.R. 417.
Sairaj 4 of 6
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
A-2 and A-3. In face of the oral as well as the documentary evidence,
the Appellant has succeeded in proving that deceased was a bona fide
passenger and was travelling under the valid ticket.
10. As regards the issue as to whether deceased died due in an
untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways
Act, 1989, upon happening of an accident, the first document, which is
generated is the Station Master's Memo who prepares the memo for
Government Railway Police. In the present case, Railway Station
Superintendent has clearly stated that deceased had fallen down from
the train and killed on spot. These documents, which are official
documents, cannot be doubted particularly, when there is no other
evidence, which has been produced by the Railways to dispute the
genuineness or the authenticity of contents of the Station Master's
Memo. Based on the evidence, which has come on record, the Trial
Court has rightly noted that the death had occasioned due to an
untoward incident. The evidence on record does not demonstrate that
the conclusion of Divisional Railway Manager's Report is different from
the contents set out in Station Superintendent's Memo. In the absence
of any evidence being led by the Railways, and Applicants having
successfully established that incident was an untoward incident, the
Trial Court has rightly decided the issue in favor of the Applicant.
11. As regards the issue of dependency, the Trial Court had not
Sairaj 5 of 6
15 Fa-1471-2006.doc
granted any compensation to brothers of the deceased and had only
granted the compensation to the father. This Court is informed that
during the pendency of proceedings, the father had expired and being
the legal heirs of father, i.e. Krishna R. Jadhav, the Applicants are now
entitled to withdrawal of the compensation.
As regards Point No. (ii) :
12. The issue as regards the payment of interest is no longer res
integra and has already been settled in the Reena Devi (supra), where it
is clearly mentioned that Claimants are entitled to compensation along
with interest from date of accident. In the present case, the interest
has been granted from the date of order against which no appeal has
been preferred. Therefore, the said order had attained finality.
13. In light of the above, First Appeal stands dismissed.
14. As the Appeal is of the year 2006, and the amount had been
deposited in this Court, the Applicants are permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited in this Court along with accrued interest.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 6 of 6
